"For any woman reading this, I hope it helps you to know you have options," Jolie wrote. "I want to encourage every woman, especially if you have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, to seek out the information and medical experts who can help you through this aspect of your life, and to make your own informed choices."

But for Jolie, the decision ultimately came down to her kids.

"I can tell my children that they don't need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer," she said.

Her risk of getting cancer was reduced from +85% to below 5% with the procedure. So medically, I think it was entirely appropriate.

And fair play to her for the decision. Even if she's had some hard miles in recent years, she's still a leading female actress in a town where cosmetic appearance is huge. It couldn't have been an easy decision, regardless of what she's saying publicly.

Angelina Jolie's surprising announcement that she'd had both breasts removed to reduce her risk of getting cancer has brought renewed attention to the controversial procedure.

Rates of women who are opting for preventive mastectomies have increased by an estimated 50 percent in recent years, experts say. And surveys show they are happy with the decision.

But many doctors are puzzled because the operation doesn't carry a 100 percent guarantee, it's major surgery -- and women have other options, from a once-a-day pill to careful monitoring. Women can take tamoxifen or one of several newer drugs called aromatase inhibitors and reduce their risk by as much as 50 percent.

In Jolie's case, her decision was "absolutely indicated," said Tuttle. At 37, Jolie is young to worry about breast cancer.

But why are so many women opting for surgery when survival rates for breast cancer are 93 percent if it’s caught at the earliest stages and 88 percent at stage 1?

“I have postulated that one of the downsides of breast cancer awareness is that there is a situation of hyperawareness. Women in the United States are just assuming they are going to get breast cancer,” Tuttle says. The actual rate is about 12 percent. About 1 in 8 U.S. women will develop breast cancer, and while 230,000 women were diagnosed with breast cancer last year, just under 40,000 died of it.

My dad had colon cancer and beat it. He currently has an inoperable brain tumor that will eventually (hopefully several years from now) take his life. If someone told me I could cut my cancer risk from 85% to 5% by having some unnecessary body removed, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I've known several women who did beat breast cancer but the chemo and radiation is no joke. Then you have years of followups wondering and worrying. I don't blame any woman for taking action BEFORE getting cancer than waiting until afterward.

Last edited by Hockeynut! on Tue May 14, 2013 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

My grandmother was not successful in her fight with breast cancer, and at the end t was pretty ugly. My mother, thankfully, was able to beat it. She was diagnosed in 1986 and has never had a single real scare since then. She had a partial mastectomy and was originally scheduled to undergo six weeks of radiation. But after the first treatment she knew there'd be know way she'd make it through the full course, so she worked with her oncologist (who worked with his team of specialists around the country) who came up with an alternative treatment.

Her oncologist, btw, was my best friend's dad. Years later, I was his son's Best Man. So I started off my toast by saluting Dr Dad and thanking him for saving my mother's life.

Sarcastic wrote:But why are so many women opting for surgery when survival rates for breast cancer are 93 percent if it’s caught at the earliest stages and 88 percent at stage 1?

I think the obvious answer to that is cancer has a 100% survival rate if you never get it in the first place.

I don't think it's as easy as saying "ah, just get the breasts removed, snip snip, and everything will be as before in your life". I don't aim to try to understand what it feels like to be a woman like Angelina who's at high risk, but at the same time I'm not sure I believe in preventive surgery like that. Women do worry about their sexuality and attractiveness, for one. It's not a shallow thing to say, just normal and honest. I can almost accept why a woman who is under very high risk may decide to have the surgery, I just hope it isn't overdone and that there aren't unscrupulous doctors out there pushing women to it for money.

She says she is also at 50% risk of getting ovarian cancer. Is she going to do anything about that as well?

Sarcastic wrote:I don't think it's as easy as saying "ah, just get the breasts removed, snip snip, and everything will be as before in your life". I don't aim to try to understand what it feels like to be a woman like Angelina who's at high risk, but at the same time I'm not sure I believe in preventive surgery like that. Women do worry about their sexuality and attractiveness, for one. It's not a shallow thing to say, just normal and honest. I can almost accept why a woman who is under very high risk may decide to have the surgery, I just hope it isn't overdone and that there aren't unscrupulous doctors out there pushing women to it for money.

She says she is also at 50% risk of getting ovarian cancer. Is she going to do anything about that as well?

As someone with kids, and I would assume she would agree with what I'm saying based off what she said in the article, they would come first before worrying about my sexuality and attractiveness. With that said, I'm sure she's perfectly fine with her decision. Just because she doesn't have boobs doesn't mean she can't be attractive or be sexual. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Sarcastic wrote:I don't think it's as easy as saying "ah, just get the breasts removed, snip snip, and everything will be as before in your life". I don't aim to try to understand what it feels like to be a woman like Angelina who's at high risk, but at the same time I'm not sure I believe in preventive surgery like that. Women do worry about their sexuality and attractiveness, for one. It's not a shallow thing to say, just normal and honest. I can almost accept why a woman who is under very high risk may decide to have the surgery, I just hope it isn't overdone and that there aren't unscrupulous doctors out there pushing women to it for money.

She says she is also at 50% risk of getting ovarian cancer. Is she going to do anything about that as well?

As someone with kids, and I would assume she would agree with what I'm saying based off what she said in the article, they would come first before worrying about my sexuality and attractiveness. With that said, I'm sure she's perfectly fine with her decision. Just because she doesn't have boobs doesn't mean she can't be attractive or be sexual. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Is that really true, on both the kids part and the sexuality? I don't think I would want to eradicate my own life for 'kids'. I'll love my kids and spoil the heck out of them, but I also couldn't give up my own life in the process. It pisses me off enough when a woman becomes so 'dedicated' to her newborn, she cuts off her beautiful long hair since it's easier to shower in 5 min. so she could jump back in with the baby. Some women become slobs when they have a child, too, completely removing any sexuality and sensuality they had before marriage and the whole thing becomes like a business arrangement. So to do what she did because she has 'kids', nah. They won't be kids forever. She may not even have been at real risk until they reached adulthood. This should strictly have been Angelina's decision as a woman and an individual. And the sexuality part... I would hope so. I mean, if they can do some kind of quality reconstruction surgery, implants, etc.. that's fantastic. I don't know if all women opt for that or how that works. --- I just looked at before and after photos. Some recon. surgery looked very good indeed. Some, not at all. We are talking major surgery that leaves severe scarring and it should not be taken lightly, in any case.

Hockeynut! wrote:sarcastic - She can still have reconstructive surgery if she wants. And even if she doesn't, it's not like she's some goblin.

All I'm trying to say is that it isn't as simple as just going in for a haircut. There are serious factors to be considered, and I'm not sure we men here can really discuss the topic as well as women could. It's a really crappy roll of dice from life if a woman gets the disease or is at such high risk as Angie, but it happens too often. I had a dear friend who died of breast cancer. 25 years old.

Sarcastic wrote:Is that really true, on both the kids part and the sexuality? I don't think I would want to eradicate my own life for 'kids'. I'll love my kids and spoil the heck out of them, but I also couldn't give up my own life in the process. It pisses me off enough when a woman becomes so 'dedicated' to her newborn, she cuts off her beautiful long hair since it's easier to shower in 5 min. so she could jump back in with the baby. Some women become slobs when they have a child, too, completely removing any sexuality and sensuality they had before marriage and the whole thing becomes like a business arrangement.

I respect and appreciate your views on this subject. That being said, since these are your views, please never have a child or the responsibility of raising one. Why? Because doing so REQUIRES that you give your life up. And you know what? It doesn't matter nor do I care that I've had to do it because I love my son more than anything that has ever existed.

Sarcastic wrote:Is that really true, on both the kids part and the sexuality? I don't think I would want to eradicate my own life for 'kids'. I'll love my kids and spoil the heck out of them, but I also couldn't give up my own life in the process. It pisses me off enough when a woman becomes so 'dedicated' to her newborn, she cuts off her beautiful long hair since it's easier to shower in 5 min. so she could jump back in with the baby. Some women become slobs when they have a child, too, completely removing any sexuality and sensuality they had before marriage and the whole thing becomes like a business arrangement. So to do what she did because she has 'kids', nah. They won't be kids forever. She may not even have been at real risk until they reached adulthood. This should strictly have been Angelina's decision as a woman and an individual. And the sexuality part... I would hope so. I mean, if they can do some kind of quality reconstruction surgery, implants, etc.. that's fantastic. I don't know if all women opt for that or how that works. --- I just looked at before and after photos. Some recon. surgery looked very good indeed. Some, not at all. We are talking major surgery that leaves severe scarring and it should not be taken lightly, in any case.

-i think your perspective on sacrifice would change once you have a kid. it's a no brainer. -the people i know who have gotten mastectomies got implants afterwards. i think it's pretty standard - especially in younger people.-as for mom haircuts, i know what you mean. i'm lucky to be married to a physical anomaly. she looks fantastic, post-baby.